The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of the activities of the business of SeaFrance, or just a collection of its assets, was to be acquired. The SCOP contended that the CMA had erred in law in concluding that the statutory conditions for its intervention had arisen. The challenge was on the technical question of statutory jurisdiction.
Held: (Arden LJ dissenting), SCOP’s appeal succeeded. The CMA had been irrationally wrong to find that SeaFrance’s ‘activities’ had come under the ownership or control of GET/SCOP and that therefore it had no jurisdiction to find that a ‘relevant merger situation’ had arisen.
The definition of an ‘enterprise’ as meaning ‘the activities or part of the activities of a business’ showed that ‘Parliament’s intention was focused only on the case in which the acquiring entity takes over another business as a going concern’.
Arden, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
[2015] EWCA Civ 487
Bailii
Enterprise Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal) CAT 20-Jan-2015
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-Jan-2015
Judgment . .
Cited by:
Cited – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority CA 10-Jul-2015
The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but . .
Appeal from – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Commercial
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546829